>From: "Olga Bourlin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James Rogers" <email@example.com>
> > On 7/28/01 7:33 PM, "Olga Bourlin" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > After all, the USA has given reparations for Jews, and to the
> > The difference in cases where the US has given reparations and where it
> > hasn't should be relatively obvious. The US has given reparations where
> > there are still legitimate plaintiffs bringing suit against the
> > This usually implies that either the victim is still alive, or the
> > family that lived during the time of the crime is.
Sounds like a statute of limitations argument. Two-part rebuttal: (1) Some
acts are so reprehensible that no statute of limitations will apply (murder
for instance), I think slavery as applied in the US would qualify; (2) Even
if there were a statute of limitations on a claim for reparations, typically
such a statute will be "tolled" during the time that the claimant was
prevented from pursuing the claim. Sure slavery ended over 100 years ago,
but blacks were not given full political voice until a mere few decades ago
(if they even have it now). What do you think the chances would have been
for blacks seeking reparations in the 1950's or '60's? Such claims would
certainly have been meted out at the business end of a hangman's noose,
don't you think?
P.S. For the record I'm not so sure reparations would be a good thing,
either for the US or for blacks. But I most certainly do not believe the
issue should be dismissed out of hand with some serious consideration.
Life is good. Refuse to die.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:59 MDT